This article is hilarious!
The first funny bit:
IBM made a serious mistake in introducing Unix code into Linux without proper notification to—or approval from—SCO, which is the current, documented owner of Unix.
Two errors in this statement. First, Novell claims SCO does NOT own the copyrights that they claim to own. Second, IBM has said they put no copyrighted code in Linux. Until EITHER of these is decided in courts, these statements can not be made.
Funny bit two:
Efforts to position this as a war between SCO and open source—or as having anything to do with Microsoft—are simply misdirection.
According to the letter in Halloween 10, Microsoft has plenty of money involved in this fight. Even if it turns out to be untrue or confusion on the part of a consultant, as has been claimed, you can't say definitively today that MS is not involved.
Next up:
In a period when executives who misuse their authority are punished to extremes, the more likely cause of this problem is the apparent attempt to cover up an ill-advised decision by an IBM executive that unnecessarily exposed IBM and Linux.
Again, there is no proof at this point that IBM did anything wrong. It is quite possible that some of the disputed code was put in by Caldera employees. And, if you want to talk about abuse and misuse of power by people in high ranking positions, what about Darl McBride's attempts to make his company money by suing everyone around him. The constant press releases about various lawsuits, press releases attacking Linux (usually containing lots of incorrect information), etc are not also misuse of power?
Next bit:
# If SCO has no evidence and is in the wrong, why is the company being so viciously attacked?
For exactly that reason. They are spreading much fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about Linux. This is hurting many more companies than just IBM. It also hurts all the people who have spent time over the past 10+ years working on the Linux kernel. If SCO filed a lawsuit, produced proof and showed that they are correct, people would be much more interested in listening. When the attacks by SCO are against a whole community without proof, the people who spent time working in this community tend to become very unhappy. Yes, there are some juvenille people in the Linux community who do stupid stuff, like writing viruses and the like, but many very smart people are talking out agsinst this in a clear manner.
On to ownership:
Unix—which forms the core of AIX, Solaris, Digital Unix, BSD and HP-UX as the major variants—was originally owned by AT&T, which licensed it to others. The ownership rights passed through various paths to Santa Cruz Operations. Santa Cruz Operations then sold the rights to Caldera, along with the company's shortened name of "SCO." Caldera is now known as SCO. Every one of the Unix licensees knew of the transfers. There were no known, timely challenges to the related ownership transfers. Through this period, IBM, among others, maintained through documentation its responsibilities under its licenses with various Unix owners, including SCO.
Again, this is being challenged by Novell. They claim they did not grant all rights to Unix to SCO.
This is great:
Firms like Entrust and NTP are designed for litigation and are run by attorneys and intellectual property experts. SCO is not. Rather, despite accusations otherwise, SCO remains, first and foremost, a software company.
SCO has become a litigation company, nothing more. When was the last time you heard Darl and crew talk about their latest release of software or something similar?
The entire section of the article entitled "IBM executive error: Linux and IBM legal likely out of decision loop" is somewhat amusing as well. First off, where is the proof that any Unix code is in Linux? There is none to date. Second, if IBM's legal team is so strict, how did this happen? Well, likely, it didn't. The author is making large leaps of faith here in believing that SCO is correct in all its claims. Any code that SCO has shown to the public to date, that they say proves their complaint, has been code that has already been released to the public domain. So, I would love to know what code the author has seen for him to be able to so quickly take the stance that SCO is right.
Oh man, this guy is reaching now
SCO did, however, have to develop a unique strategy due to the unique nature of the Linux license and community. This uniqueness allowed IBM to position the Linux community against SCO and distance itself somewhat from the less-agreeable parts of the war and, hopefully, conceal the connection between the IBM decision maker and the resulting problem. These moves were incredibly well-orchestrated and apparently included donated equipment for sites like Groklaw. This unprecedented effort by IBM supports the position that IBM actually knows it misacted and is at extreme risk. No other explanation fits this massive and unique effort to destroy a vastly smaller firm.
IBM did not position the Linux community in any way. The community has always been against any smear campaigns. Think about when MS put out the web server comparison a few years back that said IIS was faster than Apache on Linux. It very quickly came to the front that MS has paid for the research to be done. Also, the community spent much time doing their own comparisons and getting actualy results.
The Groklaw piece is just plain HILARIOUS. Pamela Jones has already said these claims are 100% false. The SCO spin doctors took some completely unrelated bits and put them together to make it seem like this was true.
On buying SCO:
So why doesn't IBM simply buy its way out? Because it can't. To do so would force an internal review that likely would identify both the decision maker and the career-ending mistake.
Or maybe, they don't because they are RIGHT. Why give money to the Canopy Group, SCO or the people that run these companies and justify their claims. It's like settling a claim out of court when you know you would win if it went to trial.
Could I agree??
We simply cannot afford any precedent that would encourage a group to use viruses, DOS attacks and additional illegal threats against any entity, be it a company or a government. The courts, not the streets, are the place for such a fight.
Very true. The overzealous idiots putting out viruses out, launching DOS attacks, etc are plain dumb and making the community look bad. The few bad apples should not represent the whole community.
And if we want to talk about the courts, not the streets being the place for this battle, then tell your buddies over at SCO that their press room is not the place for the fight either, its in the courts with real proof, not lots of FUD sent out through the press, to the government, etc.
And finally:
We should also not allow any company, even one as broadly loved and trusted as IBM, to misuse its power to take another company's property rights by use of force or to cover up a clear mistake. IBM's actions put the company's clients, partners, investors and virtually everyone who uses a computer at risk.Therefore, because might does not make right, because an SCO loss would open us up further to attack, and because if we don't protect SCO's property rights we weaken our own, SCO must win.
First off, IBM trusted? I'm not so sure I can agree with that. I've been on their side on this fight, but there are plenty I am against them with. Hell, my company directly competes with theirs and I point out all the problems with their equipment on an almost daily basis.
I agree, if SCO is REALLY right, yes, they should definitely win, but it seems like the author here is blindly trusting that the claims they are making are true. No proof has been put forward yet and until it is, you cannot jump to the conclusion that IBM is bad and SCO is good.
